30 Cited authorities

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,375 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,957 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,892 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
Compuserve, Incorporated v. Patterson
89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,113 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant's contacts with Ohio were sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant consciously reached out from Texas to Ohio to subscribe to CompuServe and sold his software over CompuServe's Ohio-based system
Bird v. Parsons
289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) Cited 846 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding 4,666 internet domain-name registrations, specifically analogized to sales, insufficient for general jurisdiction
Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc.
282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) Cited 815 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied "if the web site is interactive to a degree that reveals specifically intended interaction with residents of the state"
Theunissen v. Matthews
935 F.2d 1454 (6th Cir. 1991) Cited 1,154 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction where the district court allowed no discovery and decided the motion on the basis of factually conflicting affidavits
Air Products v. Safetech
503 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 634 times
Holding that nonresident defendants were subject to jurisdiction in Michigan based on their extensive business relationship with a Michigan company
Provident Nat. v. Cal. Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n
819 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1987) Cited 1,052 times
Holding general jurisdiction proper where the defendant had no property in Pennsylvania and conducted no advertising and only a small percentage of its business in the state, but "the nature of [defendant's] contacts with Pennsylvania . . . was central to the conduct of its business."
Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Industries, Inc.
106 F.3d 147 (6th Cir. 1997) Cited 604 times
Holding that plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing where it “alleged no facts connecting either the subject matter of the contract or its performance to the State of Michigan”
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 2307.382 - Personal jurisdiction
Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.382 Cited 593 times
Enumerating bases for specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, e.g., transacting any business in the state or causing tortious injury in the state

Clark et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al

30 Cited authorities

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

Holding that the defendant's contacts with Ohio were sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant consciously reached out from Texas to Ohio to subscribe to CompuServe and sold his software over CompuServe's Ohio-based system

Holding 4,666 internet domain-name registrations, specifically analogized to sales, insufficient for general jurisdiction

Holding that the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied "if the web site is interactive to a degree that reveals specifically intended interaction with residents of the state"

Holding that plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction where the district court allowed no discovery and decided the motion on the basis of factually conflicting affidavits

Holding that nonresident defendants were subject to jurisdiction in Michigan based on their extensive business relationship with a Michigan company

Holding general jurisdiction proper where the defendant had no property in Pennsylvania and conducted no advertising and only a small percentage of its business in the state, but "the nature of [defendant's] contacts with Pennsylvania . . . was central to the conduct of its business."

Holding that plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing where it “alleged no facts connecting either the subject matter of the contract or its performance to the State of Michigan”

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Enumerating bases for specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, e.g., transacting any business in the state or causing tortious injury in the state